Honest innuendo?

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> Dan is the KING of innuendo.

Kane wrote
> Yes, he is that, and I am not half bad myself.
>
> Can you understand the difference between our innuendo and yours?
>
> It's simply. Yours is about lying.

Tell it to ""Oliver Sutliff"".

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Dan is the KING of innuendo.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Yes, he is that, and I am not half bad myself.
>>
>> Can you understand the difference between our innuendo and yours?
>>
>> It's simply. Yours is about lying.
>
> Tell it to ""Oliver Sutliff"".

Using a nym is not lying, nor is it "innuendo."

Unless of course you wish to suggest that all the posters that have come
to these ngs over the years, under a nym signature where lying by using
a nym.

Is that your wish?

And if you are going to quote, get it correct, it was "Sutton."

And I don't recall him posting here, do you?

So what would I tell him about "lying?"

What was posted here were your exact words telling a parent to risk all
to be your lab rat by exhibiting to the family court she had indeed
committed a crime.

No innuendo about that whatsoever. YOU OWN WORDS. Unless of course you
wish to call your words, "innuendo."

Please explain your subject line, "Honest innuendo?" if you don't mind.

You've not discussed any such thing in this post.

0:->

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Please explain your subject line, "Honest innuendo?" if you don't mind.

It was a question.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Please explain your subject line, "Honest innuendo?" if you don't mind.
>
> It was a question.

Then you, Greg the Brilliant, will have to answer it. It was created in
this thread that began with a very different subject field, and created
by YOU, dimbulb.

It is not 'my subject line,' 5 watts.

So, please explain YOUR subject line, "Honest Innuendo." if you don't
mind.

Here's your post, the first to use this subject line in the thread,
bulb that is dim:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5e8b5c9761ca6805?dmode=source&hl=en

The author, Greg Hanson

The subject line, "Honest Innuendo," Greg.

I'm waiting.

Or show were I originated the subject line "Honest Innuendo."

Any time now, Greg.

o:-]

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Please explain your subject line, "Honest innuendo?" if you don't mind.
>
> It was a question.

Then you, Greg the Brilliant, will have to answer it. It was created in
this thread that began with a very different subject field, and created
by YOU, dimbulb.

It is not 'my subject line,' 5 watts.

So, please explain YOUR subject line, "Honest Innuendo." if you don't
mind.

Here's your post, the first to use this subject line in the thread,
bulb that is dim:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5e8b5c9761ca6805?dmode=source&hl=en

The author, Greg Hanson

The subject line, "Honest Innuendo," Greg.

I'm waiting.

Or show were I originated the subject line "Honest Innuendo."

Any time now, Greg.

o:-]

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Dan is the KING of innuendo.
>
> Kane wrote
> > Yes, he is that, and I am not half bad myself.
> >
> > Can you understand the difference between our innuendo and yours?
> >
> > It's simply. Yours is about lying.
>
> Tell it to ""Oliver Sutliff"".

I believe this is the second time you've refered to telling with a
Proper Noun.

I don't know any Oliver Sutliff. Could you point to where that name was
used by anyone but you?

And where he posted an innuendo or lie.

Thanks.

Kane

[Greegor]

Three messages in answer to one little one? You flatterer!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Please explain your subject line, "Honest innuendo?" if you don't mind.
>
> It was a question.

Gosh, you figured out that it was yours after all. Brilliant, 5 watts.

Now explain your question.

What is it you want to know?

Could it be you think innuendo by definition is always a lie?

Or are you just projecting?

R R R R R R R

See anything here that defines it as honest, or dishonest?

Mine are Honest. So are Dan's.

Yours, on the other hand......R R R R R

in‧nu‧en‧do  /ˌɪnyuˈɛndoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[in-yoo-en-doh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun, plural -dos, -does.
1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a
disparaging or a derogatory nature.
2. Law.
a. a parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
b. (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation
of the words alleged to be defamatory.
c. the word or expression thus explained.

Yours falls under 2. b.

Ours does not.

Now, tell us, are you learning anything you'll remember for at least
three days, or can I expect, as I have been seeing lately, you posting
the same droolery even the same day you've asked and been answered?

0 :-- ]

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> in‧nu‧en‧do  /ˌɪnyuˈɛndoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> Spelled Pronunciation[in-yoo-en-doh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> Pronunciation
> –noun, plural -dos, -does.
> 1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a
> disparaging or a derogatory nature.
> 2. Law.
> a. a parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
> b. (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation
> of the words alleged to be defamatory.
> c. the word or expression thus explained.
>
> Yours falls under 2. b.
>
> Ours does not.

You presume that when I chose the word innuendo
I didn't mean the #1 definition? How nice for you!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> in‧nu‧en‧do  /ˌɪnyuˈɛndoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show
>> Spelled Pronunciation[in-yoo-en-doh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
>> Pronunciation
>> –noun, plural -dos, -does.
>> 1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a
>> disparaging or a derogatory nature.
>> 2. Law.
>> a. a parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
>> b. (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation
>> of the words alleged to be defamatory.
>> c. the word or expression thus explained.
>>
>> Yours falls under 2. b.
>>
>> Ours does not.
>
> You presume that when I chose the word innuendo
> I didn't mean the #1 definition? How nice for you!

I don't determine what you chose, or why. I do in my own case though.

And yes, damn nice for me.

But that's what being an adult means.

I would have chosen to leave, Greg. We can't expect that from you,
apparently. Low wattage and all.

[Greegor]

> > You presume that when I chose the word innuendo
> > I didn't mean the #1 definition? How nice for you!
>
> I don't determine what you chose, or why. I do in my own case though.

Was it YOU that titled this thread?
You take my meaning by assuming a less likely
meaning of a word that I used?

> And yes, damn nice for me.
>
> But that's what being an adult means.

Redefining what someone else says by choosing
secondary meanings from a dictionary is ADULT?

> I would have chosen to leave, Greg.

You're still here!

> We can't expect that from you, apparently. Low wattage and all.

WHY would I leave, Don?

Watching you play "dictionary" is fun!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
>>> You presume that when I chose the word innuendo
>>> I didn't mean the #1 definition? How nice for you!
>> I don't determine what you chose, or why. I do in my own case though.
>
> Was it YOU that titled this thread?

Nope, you.

> You take my meaning by assuming a less likely
> meaning of a word that I used?

I take no meaning. I asked you what you meant.

>
>> And yes, damn nice for me.
>>
>> But that's what being an adult means.
>
> Redefining what someone else says by choosing
> secondary meanings from a dictionary is ADULT?

If you won't provide the meaning, then I am free to provide mine.
>
>> I would have chosen to leave, Greg.
>
> You're still here!

I don't live with someone named Lisa, in Iowa, Greg.

>> We can't expect that from you, apparently. Low wattage and all.
>
> WHY would I leave, Don?

So Lisa Jr. could return home sooner. Notice my choice of the past
tense, Greg?

As in "I WOULD have chosen to leave?"

"Chose" would indicate present tense and thus present circumstances.

Notice I did not chose "chose" but instead chose "chosen," and "would,"
not "will?"

> Watching you play "dictionary" is fun!

Watching you avoid the meanings of words is even more fun.

When you are caught at it, even more fun to watch you dodge, and not
answer the questions asked, Greg. As you just did. Now that's hilarious.

This is a real funny place, thanks to you, Greg.

So, you doing any more of that "felonious" quoting of use here in ascps,
without our permission, Greg?

R R R R R R...laugh about a laugh riot, eh.

0:->